Women pastors

[firehill]

What's the big deal about first? Jesus says the first shall be last and the last shall be first! The "first" mentality is a carnal attitude.

Yeah great, except that it has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed and is being used completely out of context.

It's a UNIVERSAL teaching/principle and fact of the order in the kingdom so it is relevent.

[Vickilynn]

Yes we are commanded to shout to the Lord.

Shalom FA,

We are not commanded to dance and whip around and all sorts of stuff in the assembly. We can worship the L-rd in our own private time. You are adding to Scripture. Paul sets down that worship is orderly.

[firehill]

One more time for CLARITY. Here's the LAW!!!

1 Co 14:21

21In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord.

21in the law it hath been written, that, `With other tongues and with other lips I will speak to this people, and not even so will they hear Me, saith the Lord;'

As I said, this is Paul's refutation:

36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

Now contrast this to the Law that the opponents of Paul claimed. Where is it?

[firehill]

14:21 is not the law. Paul never contrasted anything. He established that women could prophesy, then he gave verse 34 &35. He then ended with what? All things be done in order. Women not speaking was part of the order that had been established and was practiced in that that time. The entire context of the passage was about order. Verse 34 and 35 were part of that order. In ending, Paul reminded us of the order. The order was established in Genesis.

Yes, the context does focus on order but not muzzeling. You still need to tell me what God commanded Eve becuase you claim that such is 'the law' that Paul is refering to yet PAUL doesn't say so, so YOU should be able to explain.

[OopsMartin]

One more time for CLARITY. Here's the LAW!!!

1 Co 14:21

21In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord.

21in the law it hath been written, that, `With other tongues and with other lips I will speak to this people, and not even so will they hear Me, saith the Lord;'

As I said, this is Paul's refutation:

36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

Now contrast this to the Law that the opponents of Paul claimed. Where is it?

I am aware that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 were words that others were espousing. It is well known among theologians that those verses have been found in various places in some manuscripts. One (or more) has it in the margins as if someone who copied it knew what Paul was responding to and put it in the margins for clarity. Other manuscripts have it inserted (they can tell it was inserted later) before where it is now. Remember we didn't have numbered verses until printing presses.

What you say about verse 21 is very interesting. So when Paul says "did the Word of God originate with you......" he was rebuking them for either misinterpreting, adding to, or restricting that verse. that makes some sense because 22 thru 33 are expanding on vs. 21.

[firehill]

What you say about verse 21 is very interesting. So when Paul says "did the Word of God originate with you......" he was rebuking them for either misinterpreting, adding to, or restricting that verse. that makes some sense because 22 thru 33 are expanding on vs. 21.

Well put.

I apologize to any if I come across too blunt tonight. Am tired.

[OopsMartin]

14:21 is not the law. Paul never contrasted anything. He established that women could prophesy, then he gave verse 34 &35. He then ended with what? All things be done in order. Women not speaking was part of the order that had been established and was practiced in that that time. The entire context of the passage was about order. Verse 34 and 35 were part of that order. In ending, Paul reminded us of the order. The order was established in Genesis.

The order refers to everyone coming with something to contribute: a tongue, a revelation, a teaching, an interpretation and all things being done for edification. Part of the order is for only two or three prophets to speak and only two or three tongues to be spoken and with interpretations.

A bit of the problem is that it is reasonable that a woman who is either not a Christian or new to Christianity to be quiet and learn at home instead of disturbing the meeting with questions. But it is likely that with the Pharisaical misogyny that was prevalent at the time, they wanted women to be more removed from participation then Paul wanted. Everything to do with the spiritual gifts Paul spoke as if all were involved. Nothing in 1 Cor. 12 or in 14 other than those 2 verses which theologians know were added in, is written in male only terms, but is very inclusive.

[firehill]

14:21 is not the law. Paul never contrasted anything. He established that women could prophesy, then he gave verse 34 &35. He then ended with what? All things be done in order. Women not speaking was part of the order that had been established and was practiced in that that time. The entire context of the passage was about order. Verse 34 and 35 were part of that order. In ending, Paul reminded us of the order. The order was established in Genesis.

Yes, the context does focus on order but not muzzeling. You still need to tell me what God commanded Eve becuase you claim that such is 'the law' that Paul is refering to yet PAUL doesn't say so, so YOU should be able to explain.

"thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Order. This established the order of the family. Paul affirmed that order in this instance.

But God did not command the woman anything. He did not command the man either to rule over her. God was telling her what their relationship was now going to be like. Gen 3:16 doesn't speak of some law of God saying that Eve couldn't SPEAK. I can't see a connection at all to Gen 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 14.

3:16 did not establish the order of the family. The way it was intended was from the beginning at creation. Even Jesus pointed back to the beginning, not the fall, when he spoke of marriage (which encompasses male/female relations...) remember!

Mark 10:

5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Let us keep in mind that I believe that Paul's commandment about no male or female, no jew or Greek, Established man and woman as equal in the Church. I think that women can speak and actually can pastor.

I understood this already.

I hope we do not become divided on a trivial point that neither one of us believes is to be enforced in the Church.

Absolutely not though I disagree with your point.

[OopsMartin]

14:21 is not the law. Paul never contrasted anything. He established that women could prophesy, then he gave verse 34 &35. He then ended with what? All things be done in order. Women not speaking was part of the order that had been established and was practiced in that that time. The entire context of the passage was about order. Verse 34 and 35 were part of that order. In ending, Paul reminded us of the order. The order was established in Genesis.

Yes, the context does focus on order but not muzzeling. You still need to tell me what God commanded Eve becuase you claim that such is 'the law' that Paul is refering to yet PAUL doesn't say so, so YOU should be able to explain.

"thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Order. This established the order of the family. Paul affirmed that order in this instance.

Let us keep in mind that I believe that Paul's commandment about no male or female, no jew or Greek, Established man and woman as equal in the Church. I think that women can speak and actually can pastor. I hope we do not become divided on a trivial point that neither one of us believes is to be enforced in the Church.

Unfortunately, people do try to enforce it. But you are correct in than not many do, just like not many try to enforce veiling. Thing is that just as Paul was never trying to keep women veiled but was just wanting them to be properly attired when ministering, Paul also wasn't trying to muzzle women after telling telling them to be properly attired (chp.11) and telling everyone that ALL are to come with something to minister (chp. 14). Remember its all in the same epistle. Here Paul was looking for order in ministry, not in marriage. He addressed order in marriage in the Ephesians epistle.

And BTW please note that Gen. 3:16 isn't talking to men telling them to harshly rule over their wives. God was speaking to the woman telling her what to expect in the future.

[irishcowboy]

just wondering..... out of curiosity only,

how many people are listening to the women on this message board????

some people have been saying through the times that this is their church for they can not (for one reason or other) go to another place of fellowship.....

how many women are saying that women should not teach or preach above men?????

i know there have been several on this board, yet they place themselves above men in their arguments/debates as knowing more or having more authority.....

interesting....... isnt it......

i am just wondering, where everyone is leading to or coming from.....

mike